Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict

What a stunning event this 59th General Conference Session turned out to be! As we approached this GC Session, many wrestled with God in prayer, and I believe the Lord heard and answered wonderfully. As most now know, Elder Ted N. C. Wilson, a vice-president of the General Conference, was elected as President of the General Conference. With outstanding support on the nominating committee he was destined to affect this Session dramatically, and possibly shape the future of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As we came to this session, the church was astir over the teaching of some forms of evolution in certain parts of higher education in North America. Important questions burned in our hearts. Why was fixing this issue such a problem? Even more seriously, how deeply had the authority of Scripture been eroded among us? Teaching evolution as fact in the Adventist church? How could Sabbath-keepers ever embrace something so hostile to the seventh-day Sabbath? And, what about our children? Would these schools, established through much sacrifice to pass on Adventist faith to our children, be sacrificed on the altars of academic pride? Would the Session deal with this issue in a strong way or would the politically articulate and strident voices of secularism and liberalism stifle the whole?

Before the GC Session, and against this background, the Michigan Conference Executive Committee, supported by its Board of Education, respectfully approved an action to ask that the General Conference in Session vote the following.

1 â€œResolved: To encourage each Seventh-day Adventist college and university to continue to strengthen the principles of biblical authority and faith. In support of these principles we urge continued development of educational strategies and faculties which would move these institutions to becoming centers of excellence in promoting, cultivating and defending creation science. We define creation science in the context of the recent creation week of seven ordinary, literal, historical, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four hour days of divine creation and rest as described in Genesis.â€

2 â€œFurthermore: We request that the 2010 General Conference session vote a resolution affirming the above, with the direction of bringing to the following GC session a statement that would serve to strengthen our fundamental belief number six. Hence, our Creation doctrine would more clearly articulate our biblical view of â€˜a literal, recent, six-day Creation,â€™ in which â€˜the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week,â€™ as the statement affirmed by the General Conference Executive Committee in October 2004 noted.â€

Elder Paulsen, our former General Conference President, while very gracious, answered by telling us that instead of taking this to the Session floor, they had decided to have the GC Executive Committee vote an affirmation statement of creation which would then be released. Of course, the GC Executive Committee has weight, but not like the entire GC Session.

In a dramatic turnaround, Elder Wilson, the newly elected General Conference President, took the action of the GC Executive Committee and brought it to the floor. In one of the finest moments of GC presidential leadership he did three things:

1 First he gave a very clear and articulate speech about where the Seventh-day Adventist Church stood on creation. He was passionate, as he rejected the idea that the days in Genesis were long eons of time during which evolution was allegedly overseen by God. He quoted an Ellen G. White statement calling such views â€” â€œthe worst infidelity.â€

2 Second, he called on the delegates to vote two basic items. The first was the very fine â€œAffirmation of Creation Statementâ€ that the GC Executive Committee had voted in 2004, after the Faith and Science Committee had finished its work.

3 Third, he asked that the delegates vote to start the process that would strengthen and clarify our fundamental belief regarding creation, and bring it back for approval at the 60th General Conference Session. [The reason for this request is as follows: Even though for most of us the statement is clear, some have taken ad- vantage of the general language in the statement so as to create a loophole to justify their teaching of evolution.]

The microphones were immediately filled with passionate speeches of support. After 15 minutes of speeches on each issue the delegates voted to stop discussion, so as to vote on the issues. From what I could see, on the first vote there were no negative votes. On the second, there may have been a handful of negative votes. We were very grateful and happy that delegates were given a chance to speak. Without Elder Wilsonâ€™s leadership it may not have happened.

In my opinion, the message from the Session was very clear to those who are promoting evolution and undermining creation in our schools and even in our pulpits. The message goes something like this: â€œThe Seventh-day Adventist Church is aghast at such behavior, and will not tolerate the faith of our youth being sacrificed on the altars of evolution or academic pride.â€ This also means that administrators who oversee these institutions have the Seventh-day Adventist Church looking over their shoulders expecting the right thing to be done, and quickly.

In a powerful presentation, at the â€œYES! Creationâ€ seminar on Thursday, Dr. Ted Wilson noted that â€œwe will stand firm on our foundations,â€ and that we will keep our eyes on the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ. Quoting from Ellen White, he warned of these infidel geologists who teach evolu- tion, and thus seek to destroy the seventh-day Sabbath. Finally, he called on all Adventist teachers to believe, accept, and teach what we as a Church officially believe regarding creation.

But Elder Wilsonâ€™s holy boldness was not finished yet. Everyone waited with bated breath for his sermon on the final Sabbath of the GC Session. What a sermon it was! Again, I have never seen such courage, insight and clear articulation of the issues and dangers that surround us, expressed by a GC President.

First, let me share a bit of background. It is no secret that over the last thirty years, in certain areas of the western world, the Adventist Church has seen considerable drift from our beliefs and practices. Lately this drift has greatly accelerated. It began with attacks on the inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy. Then the higher critical scholars among us began to undermine the authority of Scripture until there were loud voices in many places expressing disbelief in nearly everything we hold true. The creation/evolution issue is a case in point.

In the name of â€œrelevance,â€ some conferences opened the door to churches to experiment with just about everything pertaining to worship. Worship shifted from being God-centered to man-centered. Borrowing nearly everything from wild dance music to drama, the methods of secular Christianity were imported into our divine services. â€œWe will worship God in any way we pleaseâ€ was the theme. Of course, this was all done with the excuse that the church had to be â€œrelevantâ€ to todayâ€™s young people. It didnâ€™t work! After all of these years of experimentation the same voices are today lamenting the great loss of young people. Sometimes one wonders what lessons from the golden calf experiment modern Israel just doesnâ€™t get?

Elder Wilson left no doubt about what â€œwallâ€ this church must put its faith-ladder on. â€œGo forward,â€ he said, â€œin lifting up Christ and proclaiming Godâ€™s grace; Go forward in presenting the three angelsâ€™ messages; Go forward in pleading for revival and reformation; Go forward in following the Bible as it reads; Go forward in reading and adhering to the counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy; Go forward in proclaiming to the world the good news of salvation and the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.â€

Then, with caution against unscriptural methods, he mentioned some specifics: â€œWe must be vigilant to test all things according to the supreme authority of Godâ€™s Word and the counsel with which we have been blessed in the writings of Ellen G. White. Donâ€™t reach out to movements or mega church centers outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church which promise you spiritual success based on faulty theology. Stay away from non-biblical spiritual disciplines or methods of spiritual formation that are rooted in mysticism such as contemplative prayer, centering prayer, and the emerging church movement, in which such things are promoted.â€

Then he addressed the matter of worship. â€œUse Christ-centered, Bible-based worship and music practices in church services; while we understand that worship services and cultures vary throughout the world, donâ€™t go backwards into confusing pagan settings where music and worship become so focused on emotion and experience that you lose the central focus on the Word of God. All worship, how- ever simple or complex should do one thing and one thing only â€” lift up Christ and put down self.â€

Next, putting his finger on the root of the drift, he said. â€œLet Scripture be its own interpreter. Our church has long held to the historical-biblical or historical-grammatical method of understanding Scripture, allowing the Bible to interpret itself â€” line upon line, precept upon precept. However, one of the most sinister attacks against the Bible is from those who believe in the historical-critical method of explaining the Bible. This unbiblical approach of â€˜higher criticismâ€™ is a deadly enemy of our theology and mission….â€ In addition, he expressed his great confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy with these words: â€œAccept the Spirit of Prophecy as one of the greatest gifts given to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, not just for the past but even more importantly for the future.â€ He continued: â€œWhile the Bible is paramount in our estimation as the ultimate authority and final arbiter of truth, the Spirit of Prophecy provides clear, inspired counsel to aid our application of Bible truth. It is a heaven-sent guide to in- struct the church in how to carry out its mission…. The Spirit of Prophecy is to be read, believed, applied and promoted.â€

What a Sabbath! After hearing this powerful courageous sermon, I thought about the unseen forces present. If our eyes could have been opened, would we have seen Jesus Himself taking charge of His church in the battle against
Satan? By means of the Holy Spirit, I believe Jesus was using His servant and calling His church to Himself.

We are in a Great Controversy. It was no surprise that Pastor Wilson could hardly finish his sermon before being assailed online by those for whom compromise is no stranger. Of course, one sermon will not fix everything. There is more need than ever for a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We must â€œgo forwardâ€ into Christ-likeness, not backward into secular worldliness.

This may have been the most important sermon to the Adventist church in modern times. Even though it may be mocked and abused by self-styled â€œprogressiveâ€ elements in our Church, let us pray that we will have ears to hear. Elder Wilson will need our prayers. May the Lord protect him and his family, spiritually and physically, and use him along with the rest of us to display the splendor of His love, to a broken world. Let us â€œgo forwardâ€ whatever the dangers, letâ€™s go forward in Christ Jesus, the true Captain of our ship.

This article was published in the August edition of the Michigan Memo. Bold emphasis added.

Post navigation

69 thoughts on “Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict”

Seventh-day Adventists have the religious liberty to teach whatever they desire in their schools, but without secular accreditation, they will quickly close and/or drastically diminish in importance. The biblical truth is that there is no “great controversy” between Christ and Satan. Christ’s victory over Satan was NEVER in doubt from day one. Indeed, Satan became a defeated foe at Calvary. It’s all about Him! Soli Deo Gloria!

I fully agree with the principle that we as a people are under a direct mandate from God to deal with this in a forthright and decisive way, BUT, with that there is also the realization that repression is as serious a problem as the one here under debate. In all that we do we also have a mandate to be redemptive, Christ centred, kind and understanding. Being drawn into the same arena of pride of opinion and force of majority that the liberal (for want of a better term) camp operates from can create an atmosphere that will send us back into the dark ages. Sometimes the devil tries to arrange things to get a reaction out of us that suits his aims just as much as the action he creates in the first place.

It certainly is time for action, but much, much prayer needs to continue to be poured into this. When God acts through His church, it often is in ways that are both surprising and decisive. After all, He’s creative!

This thoughtful assessment by Jay Gallimore is encouraging and on target. It seems to me that at Atlanta, the Holy Spirit gently took the hands of Ted Wilson and placed them onto the helm of the ship,His church,and turned it directly into the looming iceberg, in response to the heavenly command, “meet it!” As never before, this is a time for the continuing expression of genuine Holy-Spirit-promted inter-family love, prayer, respect, dialogue, and patience. As guided by God, in the end, only good and healing can flow from such decisions taken at Atlanta. May God give me and each of us the living faith needed at such a time.

I’m glad President Gallimore has the backbone to use the words “mocked and abused” to plainly state how President Wilson’s words have been and are being criticized by the “self-styled progressive elements in our Church” including AT, Spectrum, LSU, and the SECC.

This comment is in response to the resolution made up above that I find to be deeply disturbing: We define creation science in the context of the recent creation week of seven ordinary, literal, historical, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four hour days of divine creation and rest as described in Genesis.â€
I must ask, has it never occurred to the brilliant mind of Elder. Ted or to the other Adventist believers to consider the following notion: that the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the 4th day of the creation week. In which case, if this in fact is true, how can one logically argue for the position that the first 3 days were literal twenty-four hour periods, when in fact it could have been a thousand or perhaps a million years? Do we not use the celestial bodies to determine our concept of time and space? It seems that the verses describing the Creation are not to be taken literally but more figuratively, allow me to explain. On day one we have the creation of light and darkness, on day two the separation of the waters, and on the third the creation of land. The things that are created on the preceding days are to be those things that inhabit the created space. The sun, moon, and stars are to inhabit the light and darkness. The birds and fish are to inhabit the sky and sea. The animals are to inhabit and roam the land. One must also consider the historical use and influence of the Babylonian creation myth â€œEnuma Elishâ€ that the Jews employed during the Babylonian exile to conceive the creation account found within the book of Genesis.
Please understand, my comment is not intended to offend or dissuade fellow readers. But a mere inquiry that is open to hearing responses. I eagerly wait to hear word. Thank you.

Praise God for the leadership of Michigan conference President Jay Gallimore and the Michigan conference itself for taking a bold stand, setting up the groundwork for the victory in Christ that unfolded for all to see at the 59th GC session. It is only fitting and right that the first-lady of Seventh-day Adventist conferences — the Michigan Conference should have that privileged role and was found to respond so faithfully to her calling.

Praise God for the immediate decisive action taken by the newly elected GC President Neal Wilson in bringing this key issue directly to the front – striking while the iron was hot and the Church was assembled to take action. It is precisely that level of insightful bold leadership needed at this crisis hour. As for President Wilson’s loud liberal critics – very often the measure of the man can be quickly summed by the measure and determination of his opponents. In that regard President Wilson is indeed the right man for the job.

As for the recent comment above about the fabric of space-time not having a 24 hour concept until earth’s sun is created – the hint I would give is a four letter word – NASA. We spend quite a bit of time sending satellites up where there is no normal rise and set of the sun as they travel through our solar system. This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours “is”.

From a science POV the “evening and morning” sequence does not require sun – it requires a rotating planet with a period that is the same as the one we have today – and a “light source” (does not have to be the sun) – that is on ONE SIDE instead of on ALL sides.

God says that on day 1 – He provided that light source. He tells us that the 24 period for planet earth was in effect day one. Of course the earth “could” also have been spinning in its “without form and void” shape (yet having water cover the surface of the deep) on a 24 hour basis even before that time – but the text does not insist that this is the case.

On day 4 the text says that God created “TWO” great lights – not “a zillion and two” the way many of our evolutionist friends have imagined in their efforts to discredit the text.

Our own FIRST fundamental belief argues that the bible IS a reliable accurate account/record of history – and as it turns out – the record “starts” with DAY-ONE of Creation week. Thus the irreconcilable differences confronting the would-be “seventh-day darwinian” start from the very first Fundamental Belief. —

“As for the recent comment above about the fabric of space-time not having a 24 hour concept until earthâ€™s sun is created â€“ the hint I would give is a four letter word â€“ NASA. We spend quite a bit of time sending satellites up where there is no normal rise and set of the sun as they travel through our solar system. This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€.”

Dear Bob

With respect, I don’t think you can ignore Einstein’s work on General Relativity when it comes to time. I think it is a very legitimate question as to whether the notion of 24 hours could exist before the applicable gravitational forces came into being.

Although I do not agree with you in your conclusions regarding my latter comment, I nevertheless respect your views and am grateful for the opinion you have been willing to share. I will go ahead and list the comments I disagree with alongside my reasoning, and would be most grateful if you would take the time to clarify them for me.

1. “We spend quite a bit of time sending satellites up where there is no normal rise and set of the sun as they travel through our solar system. This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€.”

This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours “is” because we make our satellites travel relevant to our natural environment where a 24 hour period exist and operates.

2. “From a science POV the â€œevening and morningâ€ sequence does not require sun â€“ it requires a rotating planet with a period that is the same as the one we have today â€“ and a â€œlight sourceâ€ (does not have to be the sun) â€“ that is on ONE SIDE instead of on ALL sides.”

What exactly was this light source? I have a hard time acknowledging that this is to be translated literal versus figuratively as a creation of an environment for the sun, moon, and stars to inhabit as i have stated before.

3. “Our own FIRST fundamental belief argues that the bible IS a reliable accurate account/record of history â€“ and as it turns out â€“ the record â€œstartsâ€ with DAY-ONE of Creation week. Thus the irreconcilable differences confronting the would-be â€œseventh-day darwinianâ€ start from the very first Fundamental Belief.”

The issue with established doctrine is that it is not open to new truths that may be unveiled throughout the course of time. This is one of the reasons why there was a faction within the early church on the question of whether adopting the functionality of a doctrine would prove to be prudent or not. Also with that said, the Christian scriptures were written about 2000 yrs before Christ and about 200 years after Christ, that’s it. Whereas modern science did not occur to about the time of Gallieo, Newton, and Einstein. How can there be any science in the Bible, there cannot be, the two historical periods are separated by to much. I have a harder time trying to convince myself of this when I realize that only about 1% of the population during that time (upperclass, religious leaders) where literate and educated.

Also, I will argue that the Bible is not an accurate picture of history. For a number of reasons but I will name 2 to keep in short:

1) There are no extra-biblical evidence that the Exodus ever occured, or at least in the massive of a scale. For if there were, there would have been at least some evidence of it in Egypt or at least in its surrounding countries.

2) From the human genome project it is quite evident that the human race has its origins in Africa. Where they began to spread out to various parts of the world. As we know, an Ice Age did occur which set itself upon the Northern part of our world. Now, as the Ice melted-various floods would have occurred-in the Northern parts of the earth. Interestingly enough, all records of flood stories come from these Northern parts of the world. That is to say, that a global flood is quite questionable.

1) There are no extra-biblical evidence that the Exodus ever occured, or at least in the massive of a scale. For if there were, there would have been at least some evidence of it in Egypt or at least in its surrounding countries.

The Biblical Exodus, as described, involved the movements of tent-dwelling people. This sort of movement isn’t going to leave much archeological evidence. What this means is that the lack of positive evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

For a long time the higher biblical critics didn’t believe that Nebuchadnezzar existed or that he was the primary builder of Babylon – due to a lack of evidence. Then came the day when the walls of Bablylon were actually discovered – with the name of Nebuchadnezzar stamped on every brick.

This same thing has happened over and over again. The Bible has proven itself to be the most reliable historical textbook in history.

2) From the human genome project it is quite evident that the human race has its origins in Africa. Where they began to spread out to various parts of the world.

There are competing theries here. The African origin has not been conclusively demonstrated by the genome project at all. There are numerous theories for the origin of the human race from all over the place – such as China or even Northern Europe.

As we know, an Ice Age did occur which set itself upon the Northern part of our world. Now, as the Ice melted-various floods would have occurred-in the Northern parts of the earth. Interestingly enough, all records of flood stories come from these Northern parts of the world. That is to say, that a global flood is quite questionable.

This claim is also mistaken. Flood legends and myths come from all major societies and cultures in history – north and south and in between. They simply are not limited to the northern part of the world like you claim:

Dear Mr. Pitman,
I never said that the Exodus was an impossible task or event; I just said that having such an event in that massive of a scale unfolding seems improbable. Imagine with me for a moment if you would, that thousands of your fellow citizens decided to leave your city. Donâ€™t you think that this would have been a noteworthy event? If not for you at least for those around you? I mean this would not only affect the populace as far as population size is concerned but more importantly it will have a direct and negative impact upon the economy. Thus with this said, the testimony of tent dwelling people would be irrelevant (although helpful) for those effected by this would have at least had something to say. Though you are right in saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence for its absence.
Also, there are further speculations as to the validity towards the parting of the â€œRed Seaâ€ versus the parting of the â€œReed Seaâ€, in which case the parting of the waters is a natural phenomenon and the only miraculous thing about the event would have been the timing of the crossing.
Your statement regarding Nebuchadnezzar also runs into trouble for there were more than one Nebuchadnezzar present within the lineage of kings in Babylon. Unless you were referring to a specific one for your example.
The statement you made regarding the Bible as the most reliable textbook in history also troubles me in many levels but specifically in the context of theodicy. Many secular scientist would say that the earth is at least 4 billion years old, with creationist attesting to the earth age as being within 12-10,000 years. For the sake of this argument 10,000 years would be fine. We say that Christ intervention came 2000 years ago. Which means that for 8,000 years people have suffered and died with heaven watching down. They did not decide to call for an intervention until 2000 years ago-into one of the most illiterate parts of the world during that time-The middle east. Where literacy rate was about 1% of the total population. It wasnâ€™t say somewhere like China where writing was invented.
As far as the genome project is concerned alongside the impact of the ice age-I believe we must agree to disagree. It is evident from my study of the human genome that the notion the â€œout of Africaâ€ theory seems more convincing to me than what your article suggests. But it would be wrong for me to forcefully lionize this concept for it is one manâ€™s opinion and science itself is continually unraveling new truths-thus like all students we must remain humble and continually seeking.
I appreciate your thoughts
With gratitude,
RK

The Biblical Exodus, as described, involved the movements of tent-dwelling people. This sort of movement isnâ€™t going to leave much archeological evidence. What this means is that the lack of positive evidence doesnâ€™t mean it didnâ€™t happen.

Fascinating. Good point regarding archeology, but weren’t the Egyptians by this point maintaining a good written history in their hieroglyphics? Pardon my ignorance.

Ricky, you said:
The statement you made regarding the Bible as the most reliable textbook in history also troubles me in many levels but specifically in the context of theodicy. Many secular scientist would say that the earth is at least 4 billion years old, with creationist attesting to the earth age as being within 12-10,000 years. For the sake of this argument 10,000 years would be fine. We say that Christ intervention came 2000 years ago. Which means that for 8,000 years people have suffered and died with heaven watching down. They did not decide to call for an intervention until 2000 years ago-into one of the most illiterate parts of the world during that time-The middle east. Where literacy rate was about 1% of the total population. It wasnâ€™t say somewhere like China where writing was invented.
———————————————–

Perhaps you do not understand the Bible at all. It teaches that when sin entered at the beginning, there was a promise (cf Genesis 3:15) of redemption that was shadowed by the sacrifical system. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29) and He is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world (Rev 13:8).

This means that Jesus’ coming did not exclude the people of any race or era, but they had a faith based system which was communicated and if believed, people would have participated in this system.

God does not wish for any to perish but that all should come to repentance. He is no respecter of persons. Thus we can be sure that people of all ages and races will be saved. Our job now is to believe and make our calling and election sure. I invite you to do the same.

God has bore long with the sinful world, but like modern day Israel, ancient Israel frustrated the will of God. It was God intention for ancient Israel to be missionaries to the world and bring about the everlasting kingdom. God intended for those who experienced the Red Sea crossing to enter into the New Jerusalem. “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established.” (Exodus 15:17) But they did not enter in because of unbelief (Hebrews 4). The same can be said for the early Advent people who also failed to entered in because of unbelief before the turn of the 20th century.

God did not wait to intervene until after 4000 years had passed. First there was Adam, Enoch, Noah. After the flood, Noah had not even died when God called out Abraham, and, as I noted above, God would have established an everlasting kingdom with the twelve tribes who left Egypt, but they would not believe the word of the LORD. Even then God bore long with His people. It was for a short period of only a few hundreds years before Christ came that we have no record of a prophet among God’s people… then John the Baptist came unto the scene.

I encourage the reading of “The Everlasting Covenant” by E. J. Waggoner for an excellent account of God’s dealing with His people in the Old Testament.

The exodus was a devastating and humiliating experience for Egypt. The lack of record is likely due to fact that they did not want such a record, and did all in their power to obliterate it. It may or may not be that some record will be found. As for me, I don’t hinge my belief in the Scriptures based upon whether or not it is verified by some historian or scientist, but because I am a witness to the power of the word of God, both in my life and in the life of others.

By definition an hour is 1/24th of the time of one rotation of the planet.

It doesn’t matter how fast the planet is rotating, an hour is always 1/24 of the rotation time.

If you had two planets side by side (planet A and Planet B) and one (planet B) was rotating twice as fast as the other, each planet would still have 24 hours per day/rotation. The difference is that an hour on planet B, when measured by time based on planet A, would be 1/2 the length of time as an hour on planet A. But still, Each planet would have 24 hour days. What matters here is which planet do you live on.

A minute is 1/60 of an hour and a second is 1/60 of a minute. Our Measurements of time is based on the rotation of the planet. The second is based on the minute and the minute is based on the hour and the hour is based on the rotation of the planet. Time is not based on the second or some fraction there of. Nuclear clocks have been set up to try to have a basis to measure time across the universe based on the second. Still even then it is an measurement at only approximates the time of 1/60 of 1/60 of 1/24 of 1 rotation of the planet.

So to saying that the days of the creation week were 24 hours long is really a redundancy. A hour is 1/24 of a day.

As for physics AiG has an excellent summary and explanation found here:

Ricky Kim says:
September 7, 2010 Dear Mr. Pitman,
I never said that the Exodus was an impossible task or event; I just said that having such an event in that massive of a scale unfolding seems improbable. Imagine with me for a moment if you would, that thousands of your fellow citizens decided to leave your city. Donâ€™t you think that this would have been a noteworthy event? If not for you at least for those around you? I mean this would not only affect the populace as far as population size is concerned but more importantly it will have a direct and negative impact upon the economy.

1. If we were to ignore the historic evidence that Egyptians were known for editing their historic records to remove mention of events and persons that did not flatter the god-pharaoh of the time – we might assume that such a large exodus should be in their records.

2. If we were to look for similar mass – exodus as a simply “natural” event – we will find that it is not likely that things ‘just so happen’ by themselves in the same way that God causes to happen by divine miracles.

3. Given that Israel went to Caanan 40 years later and then wiped out the population that they replaced – we cannot look to the conquered people for detailed historic records.

But so far the Bible has proven to be a reliable record of ancient history – and our FB #1 is still affirmed.

Although I do not agree with you in your conclusions regarding my latter comment, I nevertheless respect your views and am grateful for the opinion you have been willing to share. I will go ahead and list the comments I disagree with alongside my reasoning, and would be most grateful if you would take the time to clarify them for me.

1. â€œWe spend quite a bit of time sending satellites up where there is no normal rise and set of the sun as they travel through our solar system. This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€.â€

This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€ because we make our satellites travel relevant to our natural environment where a 24 hour period exist and operates.

Actually we are not measuring time with the sun at all. We use either an atomic clock (caesium 133). We based time on physics that is independent of the rotation of our planet. The onboard clock does not ask earth for the time.

2. â€œFrom a science POV the â€œevening and morningâ€ sequence does not require sun â€“ it requires a rotating planet with a period that is the same as the one we have today â€“ and a â€œlight sourceâ€ (does not have to be the sun) â€“ that is on ONE SIDE instead of on ALL sides.â€

What exactly was this light source? I have a hard time acknowledging that this is to be translated literal versus figuratively as a creation of an environment for the sun, moon, and stars to inhabit as i have stated before.

Again your argument presumes that the only source of light in all of the universe is fusion reactions of hydrogen to Helium in our sun. As it turns out – there are many ways to create light – and hydrogen–> Helium fusion is just one of them.

I am not sure why you think this would have been a problem for God or why your not knowing which method He used – makes it reasonable to doubt the text. In the text God is the creator of sun, moon, life on earth, the formatting of the earth environment etc. Nothing in the text leads the reader to the conclusion that God is not creating. Thus the argument that the LIGHT on the first day could not possibly be a creative act of God is not a conclusion based on exegeting the text.

3. â€œOur own FIRST fundamental belief argues that the bible IS a reliable accurate account/record of history â€“ and as it turns out â€“ the record â€œstartsâ€ with DAY-ONE of Creation week. Thus the irreconcilable differences confronting the would-be â€œseventh-day darwinianâ€ start from the very first Fundamental Belief.â€

The issue with established doctrine is that it is not open to new truths that may be unveiled throughout the course of time. This is one of the reasons why there was a faction within the early church on the question of whether adopting the functionality of a doctrine would prove to be prudent or not.

Our first published set of Fundamental Beliefs was in 1872. The list given there has been “regrouped” and more doctrines added – but the practice goes back well into the 1800’s.

The key benefit of the early “Sabbath Conferences” and publishing of our “pillar” doctrines was urgently needed because at our early stage of development there were chaotic meetings where “hardly two agreed” and because they had ministers going out “claiming” to be Adventist that had false doctrine. They needed to draw a line. James White and Uriah Smith were at one point handing out ministerial “licenses” based on first approving the doctrine of the applicant.

Also with that said, the Christian scriptures were written about 2000 yrs before Christ and about 200 years after Christ, thatâ€™s it. Whereas modern science did not occur to about the time of Gallieo, Newton, and Einstein. How can there be any science in the Bible, there cannot be, the two historical periods are separated by to much.

The logic in your argument is illusive.

1. Children are born in nine months in the Bible – science or not.
2. The earth rotates resulting in a 24 hour day in the Bible – science or not.
3. The author of the bible is God – (2Peter 1:20-21, 2Tim 3:16) — the greatest scientist of all time.

One of the tests of an inspired prophet is that doctrine has to be correct. But why should doctrine be correct if the Bible is only the product of flawed human thinking? Surely a “good person” can have flawed doctrine. Well it turns out that the REASON that is a valid test of a prophet is that the source is NOT the man – it is God.

Also, I will argue that the Bible is not an accurate picture of history. For a number of reasons but I will name 2 to keep in short:

1) There are no extra-biblical evidence that the Exodus ever occured, or at least in the massive of a scale. For if there were, there would have been at least some evidence of it in Egypt or at least in its surrounding countries.

2) From the human genome project it is quite evident that the human race has its origins in Africa. Where they began to spread out to various parts of the world. As we know, an Ice Age did occur which set itself upon the Northern part of our world. Now, as the Ice melted-various floods would have occurred-in the Northern parts of the earth. Interestingly enough, all records of flood stories come from these Northern parts of the world. That is to say, that a global flood is quite questionable. Ricky Kim

1. You are correct to observe that the path you are going down requires denial of our very first Fundamental Belief. There is no way around it if the goal is evolution.

2. Your are taking assumptions (in some cases very large assumptions) and trying to position them as proven fact.

3. I have already explained the Exodus record – so I will deal with the 2nd point above.

There are no historic records nor videos nor DNA fragments showing how people migrated at the time of Noah other than the Bible.

There is no evidence at all that mankind has unearthed the entire human population that was alive at the time of Noah or even 400 years after Noah. When they migrated to Africa is unknown. There are no records written before that time and the remaining guesswork is based on assumptions applied to more assumptions.

Soft tissue finds, protein molecule finds and DNA fragment finds in strata much older than is possible given the half-life of those materials is already telling us that something is wrong with our date/age system for the past.

Assumptions piled on top of assumptions do not form a compelling argument against the inspired text.

Actually we are not measuring time with the sun at all. We use either an atomic clock (caesium 133). We based time on physics that is independent of the rotation of our planet. The onboard clock does not ask earth for the time.

What? We had neither physicists nor an atomic clock when our basic time units (years, days, hours, minutes, seconds) were developed based on rotation of the earth. Physicists and atomic clocks came about much, much later to give us more precision.

I tend to believe that Africa origin theory was originated by some politically correct scientist who has nothing better to do; just a conjecture. I recall having heard the theory of Africa from the left leaning NPR years ago.

If we accept Scripture and the opinion of true archeologists and Bible scholars about the Middle East origin of mankind then we can just disregard fanciful theories.

I hope this discussion does not become a place where those who do not believe in Creation can vent their arguments. They will find a better reception on either Spectrum or Adventists Today.

The overall question here is rather simple in my view. One either accepts that the omnipotent Creator is capable of both creating by His voice, through His Spirit in seven days as the Bible states, AND is also capable of preserving the true plain facts about His creation act within His Word recorded accurately so that none may be uninformed as to our origin, OR one does not completely believe God to have sufficient ability create as He says He did or perhaps to preserve His own Word accurately.
Subsequently with the latter every fallible reasoning and so called science of mankind must be applied to the Bible for ‘answers’.

To me the true answer is rather easy. When faced with the questions, science, reasoning, or thoughts conceived in the minds of sinful mortal men it would be wise to side with the plainly written facts from the perfect mind of God.
Such was the example of the human Christ…”thus sayeth the Lord…”
As if that isnt sufficient enough already, add the gift of knowledge given through the Spirit of Prophecy and its a slam dunk.

Issues:
1. We are automatically labeled as â€œsinnersâ€ from the day we are born due to the actions of Adam and Eve. To understand how ludicrous this idea is, let me give you an illustration. Your parents are North Koreans who conspired against… the established government. They were duly captured, and as punishment the government decides to cut off their hands and legs, and also decides to carry out this mutilating sentence to their future offspringâ€™s. The concept of free will or choice, which is so cherished by Christians, is in no way present within this situation. For the offspringâ€™s are not judged based upon their own merit, but rather their parents. Thus they literally become scapegoats, punished for actions in which they themselves did not commit, which is not only unjust but also ridiculous. And to expand upon this idiocy, they are required to confide and seek redemption in the man called Christ for the condition in which they have been forcefully placed. To do otherwise will mean to condemn oneself to everlasting torment. Utterly ridiculous.
2. Now. If you can make the claim/rebuttal to the latter by saying that â€œalthough the children may have been born into an unfair situation that they did not ask for, but still have the free will to choose Christ.â€ Let me answer you by saying this. In this world, oneâ€™s belief structure is strongly reinforced and influenced by the geographic region and time period in which they are born into. For example, if you lived in ancient Greece you would worship Zeus or Poseidon, If you were born in the Middle East you would believe in Mohammed, if you were born in China you would confide in the teachings of Buddha or Confucius, etcâ€¦ In this arena of diverging thoughts and perspectives. How can one find truth? If we are to argue that truth is the Christian message of having faith in Christ? Honestly, if you were a Christian and some Buddhist came up to you waving his little Buddhist bible asking you to convert to the â€œtruthâ€. What is more likely? That you would accept it? Or dismiss it as false? If we are to take the position that Buddhism is indeed the truth? You would dismiss of course, because you believe that the Christian bible is the truth. Thus even in this scenario the population of the world is placed in an unfair situation.
3. If we claim that God is all-powerful, knowing, and loving then why did God create the universe? Particularly the planet called earth? If He knew that by creating the world he will essentially damn men to suffer and die? If you were a parent, and knew that by conceiving you will place your children in a cycle of pain and unspeakable suffering. Why would you do it? Unless you were to say that he did not know (in which case why call him God?) or that he limited his knowledge (in which case he is being extremely unethical and sadistic at best).

September 8, 2010 Bob Ryan wrote
Actually we are not measuring time with the sun at all. We use either an atomic clock (caesium 133). We based time on physics that is independent of the rotation of our planet. The onboard clock does not ask earth for the time.

Professor Kent says:

What? We had neither physicists nor an atomic clock when our basic time units (years, days, hours, minutes, seconds) were developed based on rotation of the earth. Physicists and atomic clocks came about much, much later to give us more precision. Professor Kent(Quote)

I guess you would have had to follow the argument to see the point. The claim was made initially that the fabric of space time itself does not allow for an evening and morning – 24 hours without earth’s sun in place so Moses could not have been shown an earth rotating on its axis in a 24 hour evening morning fashion since TIME ITSELF is undefined with the sun.

My point was that the notion that time itself is undefined if our sun is not there to tell us what time it is – went out the window a while ago.

Turns out God is “even smarter” than we are — so if we can figure it out – it is not too much of a stretch to claim that God can do just as good as man in that department.

2. â€œFrom a science POV the â€œevening and morningâ€ sequence does not require sun â€“ it requires a rotating planet with a period that is the same as the one we have today â€“ and a â€œlight sourceâ€ (does not have to be the sun) â€“ that is on ONE SIDE instead of on ALL sides.â€

@Ricky Kim: said –

What exactly was this light source? I have a hard time acknowledging that this is to be translated literal versus figuratively as a creation of an environment for the sun, moon, and stars to inhabit as i have stated before.

BobRyan said –

Again your argument presumes that the only source of light in all of the universe is fusion reactions of hydrogen to Helium in our sun. As it turns out â€“ there are many ways to create light â€“ and hydrogenâ€“> Helium fusion is just one of them.

I am not sure why you think this would have been a problem for God or why your not knowing which method He used â€“ makes it reasonable to doubt the text. In the text God is the creator of sun, moon, life on earth, the formatting of the earth environment etc. Nothing in the text leads the reader to the conclusion that God is not creating. Thus the argument that the LIGHT on the first day could not possibly be a creative act of God is not a conclusion based on exegeting the text.

3. â€œOur own FIRST fundamental belief argues that the bible IS a reliable accurate account/record of history â€“ and as it turns out â€“ the record â€œstartsâ€ with DAY-ONE of Creation week. Thus the irreconcilable differences confronting the would-be â€œseventh-day darwinianâ€ start from the very first Fundamental Belief.â€

@Ricky Kim: said –

The issue with established doctrine is that it is not open to new truths that may be unveiled throughout the course of time. This is one of the reasons why there was a faction within the early church on the question of whether adopting the functionality of a doctrine would prove to be prudent or not.

BobRyan said —

Our first published set of Fundamental Beliefs was in 1872. The list given there has been â€œregroupedâ€ and more doctrines added â€“ but the practice goes back well into the 1800â€²s.

The key benefit of the early â€œSabbath Conferencesâ€ and publishing of our â€œpillarâ€ doctrines was urgently needed because at our early stage of development there were chaotic meetings where â€œhardly two agreedâ€ and because they had ministers going out â€œclaimingâ€ to be Adventist that had false doctrine. They needed to draw a line. James White and Uriah Smith were at one point handing out ministerial â€œlicensesâ€ based on first approving the doctrine of the applicant.

@Ricky Kim: said –

Also with that said, the Christian scriptures were written about 2000 yrs before Christ and about 200 years after Christ, thatâ€™s it. Whereas modern science did not occur to about the time of Gallieo, Newton, and Einstein. How can there be any science in the Bible, there cannot be, the two historical periods are separated by to much.

BobRyan replied —

The logic in your argument is illusive.

1. Children are born in nine months in the Bible â€“ science or not.
2. The earth rotates resulting in a 24 hour day in the Bible â€“ science or not.
3. The author of the bible is God â€“ (2Peter 1:20-21, 2Tim 3:16) â€” the greatest scientist of all time.

One of the tests of an inspired prophet is that doctrine has to be correct. But why should doctrine be correct if the Bible is only the product of flawed human thinking? Surely a â€œgood personâ€ can have flawed doctrine. Well it turns out that the REASON that is a valid test of a prophet is that the source is NOT the man â€“ it is God.

@Ricky Kim: said –

Also, I will argue that the Bible is not an accurate picture of history. For a number of reasons but I will name 2 to keep in short:

1) There are no extra-biblical evidence that the Exodus ever occured, or at least in the massive of a scale. For if there were, there would have been at least some evidence of it in Egypt or at least in its surrounding countries.

2) From the human genome project it is quite evident that the human race has its origins in Africa. Where they began to spread out to various parts of the world. As we know, an Ice Age did occur which set itself upon the Northern part of our world. Now, as the Ice melted-various floods would have occurred-in the Northern parts of the earth. Interestingly enough, all records of flood stories come from these Northern parts of the world. That is to say, that a global flood is quite questionable. Ricky Kim

BobRyan said —

1. You are correct to observe that the path you are going down requires denial of our very first Fundamental Belief. There is no way around it if the goal is evolution.

2. Your are taking assumptions (in some cases very large assumptions) and trying to position them as proven fact.

3. I have already explained the Exodus record â€“ so I will deal with the 2nd point above.

There are no historic records nor videos nor DNA fragments showing how people migrated at the time of Noah other than the Bible.

There is no evidence at all that mankind has unearthed the entire human population that was alive at the time of Noah or even 400 years after Noah. When they migrated to Africa is unknown. There are no records written before that time and the remaining guesswork is based on assumptions applied to more assumptions.

Soft tissue finds, protein molecule finds and DNA fragment finds in strata much older than is possible given the half-life of those materials is already telling us that something is wrong with our date/age system for the past.

Assumptions piled on top of assumptions do not form a compelling argument against the inspired text.

Allen Roy says:
September 8, 2010 24 hour day
By definition an hour is 1/24th of the time of one rotation of the planet.
It doesnâ€™t matter how fast the planet is rotating, an hour is always 1/24 of the rotation time.
If you had two planets side by side (planet A and Planet B) and one (planet B) was rotating twice as fast as the other, each planet would still have 24 hours per day/rotation.

Some facts – we have more than one planet in our solar system and they each have their own rotational period. Even our own moon has its own rotational period. Turns out given this real life case of having many planets all rotating at their own rate – we do not say “they all have 24 hour days” or “24 hour evening and mornings”. Evening and morning is different lengths of time depending on the planet you select.

This one happens to be 24 hours.

And a second happens to be based on something like 9192631770cycles for cesium 133. Once you have the second – everything else falls right into line.

To quote further what was referenced in the above commentary regarding ‘infidelity’….

“I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day.”

“The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days.”

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days.”

“But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.”

“And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them.”

“I have been shown that without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God’s creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence.”

“Man will be left without excuse. God has given sufficient evidence upon which to base faith if he wish to believe. In the last days the earth will be almost destitute of true faith. Upon the merest pretense, the word of God will be considered unreliable, while human reasoning will be received, though it be in opposition to plain Scripture facts. Men will endeavor to explain from natural causes the work of creation, which God has never
revealed. But human science can not search out the secrets of the God of Heaven, and explain the stupendous works of creation, which were a miracle of Almighty power, any sooner than it can show how God came into existence.”

Statements from Spiritual Gifts Vol 3 pgs 90-96

These inspired statements are completely harmonious with Scripture.
One can either accept the Bible account or question and deny it.
One can also either accept inspiration or question and deny it.
Thankfully the ‘need to know’ answers are plainly there for any that honestly seek them.

This certainly has been an interesting dialogue,
and I must thank each of you for allowing me to play the devil’s advocate.
And leaving notes upon my various comments. Very enjoyable indeed. However, a quick injection I wish to make.

Enuma Elish or the babylonian creation myth seems to share similarities with the Genesis account. Considering that its creation myth is older. I wanted to ask what are we to make of this? Did God inspire the Babylonians with some truths? And if so, can we consider that all religions lead to one God? And if not, how seriously are we to take the narrative of Genesis. Which also has 2 perspectives of creation. Verse 1 & 2?

Also, since we are on the subject of Genesis.
Do you think that man is destined for eternal life?

Genesis 2:15 says:

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

How could they have known what death was if sin has yet to enter the world?
Did they know it as a concept? And if so, wouldn’t this imply that they have some knowledge of what evil is?

Dear Mr. Pitman,
I never said that the Exodus was an impossible task or event; I just said that having such an event in that massive of a scale unfolding seems improbable.Imagine with me for a moment if you would, that thousands of your fellow citizens decided to leave your city. Donâ€™t you think that this would have been a noteworthy event? If not for you at least for those around you? I mean this would not only affect the populace as far as population size is concerned but more importantly it will have a direct and negative impact upon the economy.

Actually, as was pointed out by a previous poster on this site, the incorrect Egyptian chronology that has been foisted upon us is the cause of many of these misunderstandings. Now there are a number of serious efforts to line up Biblical history with Egyptian chronology. While they may not agree in all details, they do share the common understanding that Egyptian chronology is much shorter than previously assumed. With this understanding, a number of points match up between Egyptian and Biblical history.

One interesting matching point is the downfall of the Egyptian economy after a series of natural disasters. The destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea may have been what allowed the “stranger people from outside Egypt” (the Hyksos) to invade Egypt, (just after the Exodus, according to the revised chronology). From a document supposed to be from the 19th dynasty (but could be a copy of a document from the 12th dynasty):

Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere…. Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water….Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire….Nay but men are few. Hey that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere….Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized….The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt….Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume, and oil. Everyone says “there is no more.” The storehouse is bare….It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.

–Ipuwer Papyrus, Leiden Museum
(Thanks to the book, “Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline” (by John Ashton & David Down, p. 102) for this quote).

It sounds to me like the effect of the Exodus on the Egyptian economy was actually recorded in history, but our understanding of Egyptian Chronology has only recently begun to be corrected (and thus, to line up with the Bible Chronology, so that events could be recognized for what they were).

On numerous occassions this has been pointed out to our evolutionist friends and at times they have been bold enough to give the response that most closely fits their POV — “Well then Ellen White was wrong”.

Also, there are further speculations as to the validity towards the parting of the â€œRed Seaâ€ versus the parting of the â€œReed Seaâ€, in which case the parting of the waters is a natural phenomenon and the only miraculous thing about the event would have been the timing of the crossing.

Don’t forget about the drowning of the entire Egyptian army in the shallow waters of the Reed Sea 😉

Your statement regarding Nebuchadnezzar also runs into trouble for there were more than one Nebuchadnezzar present within the lineage of kings in Babylon. Unless you were referring to a specific one for your example.

As far as I’m aware, there were only two “Nebuchadnezzars” in the line of the Babylonian kings. Nebuchadnezzar I was king of the Babylonian Empire from about 1125 to 1103 BCE. He is not to be confused with the more well-known Nebuchadnezzar II of biblical fame who reigned from 605 to 562 BCE. It is kind of hard to confuse these two kings.

Beyond this, it was completely forgotten for most of modern history that Nebuchadnezzar II is the one who actually built the famed city of Babylon and the famous hanging gardens during the time of Daniel (6th century BCE). For example, according to early Greek historians and those living during the Hellenistic era (beginning after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE), King Nebuchadnezzar was thought to have played a rather insignificant role in the affairs of ancient history. In fact, many scholars didn’t even believe that he was a real historical personage much less a prominent King of Babylon. He is never referred to early Greek literature as a great builder or as the creator of a new and greater Babylon. In fact, this honor is generally ascribed to Assyrian Queen Semiramis who was given a rather prominent place in the history of Babylonia by classical Greek historians.

The problem is that relatively recent discoveries of cuneiform records from the 6th century B.C., (unearthed by archeologists during the 1800s) have entirely changed the picture derived from classical writers. At the same time these early records have corroborated the account of the book of Daniel – which credits Nebuchadnezzar with the rebuilding of Babylon at the height of Babylonian power (Daniel 4:30).

But, what about Queen Semiramis? As it turns out, Queen Semiramis (SammuDramat in cuneiform inscriptions) was a queen mother in Assyria – regent for her infant son Adad-nirari III. Contrary to the claims of the classical sources, she was not a queen over Babylonia at all. The cuneiform inscriptions have shown that she had nothing to do with any building activity in Babylon.

The Greek historians were also silent in regards to the “Belshazzar” mentioned in the Bible. Yet, the cuneiform tablets note that Belshazzar (grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II) was the eldest son of King Nabonidus (son of Nebuchadnezzar II) who reigned with his son and entrusted the rule of Babylon to him while he was in Arabia (on a spiritual journey). Historical documents continued to reference his name only, but his son was the crown prince, heir and ruler while his father was absent

Obviously then, no one could have known and detailed the information written in the book of Daniel except for someone living during or immediately after the Neo-Babylonian age. Anyone living too many years later would simple not have had access to this forgotten information which had been completely lost by the time of the Hellenistic era. In fact, the presence of such information in the book of Daniel seems to puzzle at least a few critical scholars who do not believe that Daniel was written in the 6th century (BCE), but rather in the 2nd.

A typical example of their dilemma is found in the following statement from R. H. Pfeiffer, of Harvard University:

â€œWe shall presumably never know how our author [Daniel] learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar . . ., as the excavations have provedâ€ (Introduction to the Old Testament [New York, 1941], pp. 758, 759).

It seems to me that many of your facts are either clearly mistaken or pulled out of thin air. You also pick and choose the data that you wish to present and present it as if there is no debate or any other reasonable alternative position debated among mainstream scientists or historians. You can be skeptical all you want, but at least be honest about what the currently available data can and cannot clearly support…

The overall question here is rather simple in my view. One either accepts that the omnipotent Creator is capable of both creating by His voice, through His Spirit in seven days as the Bible states, AND is also capable of preserving the true plain facts about His creation act within His Word recorded accurately so that none may be uninformed as to our origin, OR one does not completely believe God to have sufficient ability create as He says He did or perhaps to preserve His own Word accurately.
Subsequently with the latter every fallible reasoning and so called science of mankind must be applied to the Bible for â€˜answersâ€™.
To me the true answer is rather easy. When faced with the questions, science, reasoning, or thoughts conceived in the minds of sinful mortal men it would be wise to side with the plainly written facts from the perfect mind of God.

You’re correct. However, as you can see from all the fluff from Ricky Kim, Prof Kent, and others, the real issue is being smoke-screened to death by those who want to provide us with another explanation, of something else, from some secular humanistic viewpoint, about everything except the real issue we are dealing with at LSU.

I guess where we ultimately differ gentlemen is that we don’t see eye to eye in matters pertaining to scripture because I don’t necessarily see it to be inspired. So much talk resulting in so little. I say this particularily do to issues I have regarding God’s justice in the topic of theodicy, and how little the arguments offered by Christians to defend God captivates me. I guess I’m a condemned man? haha. However, I have enjoyed our little chat and thank each of you for taking the time to expand upon it.

Think with me for a moment… Let’s say a recently married man kills another man and is condemned to death by the law. In the execution of the man, they are not only condemning the man, but all of the offspring he may have had who never have the chance to make the decision to follow the footsteps of their father or to live an upright life. Yet, we would say the death of that man was justice served.

The name Adam means “mankind”. He was the representative of every person who ever lived. When God was forming Adam of the dust of the earth, He was creating the entire human race. We all were in Adam; therefore, the sentence of death falling upon Adam also fell upon us. God could have executed that sentence upon Adam and He would have been just in doing so. But the character of God is both mercy and justice, so He provided a way for both.

However, there is another part of the equation. Our condemnation of death is not only the result of the death sentence falling upon Adam, but because we have inherited bad software, which the Bible calls “the carnal mind.” Of this mind, the Bible says, “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7) Nothing can be done to the carnal mind to bring it into harmony with the law, therefore, it is condemned to death. “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6) This is why the Bible speaks over and over again about the new birth, the new heart, being transformed by the renewing of the mind, having the mind of Christ, Christ dwelling in you, writing the law upon the mind and heart, having God’s name (character) written in (not on) the forehead, etc. etc. The only unfairness about it is the fact that sinners get a second chance. Grace is truly unmerited favor. The only merit we have is the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Yes, we were all condemned in Adam without our choice, but we also were redeemed in Christ without our choice. Now we can decide whether we want what we have coming to us in Adam or what we have coming to us in Christ.

As for those growing up in other countries and other faiths… “For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” (Romans 2:11-16); and, “Jesus said unto them, ‘If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.'” (John 9:41) It is only as light is rejected that sin is charged against them. That light could be simply an enlightened conscience or it could be the revelation of Jesus Himself. There will be those in heaven who have never named the name of Christ, yet they were saved by that name. In addition, I have heard many stories of those people in pagan countries having dreams and vision which lead them to Christ… yet that rarely seems to happen here in the land where the knowledge of Jesus is easily obtained. God will reach all who “seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” (Deuteronomy 4:29; Jeremiah 29:13) Just before Christ comes, Revelation 18 tells us that the whole earth will be filled with His glory, all will have the opportunity to decide based upon a full revelation of Jesus in His people.

I don’t claim to know every intricacy of the gospel, but I clearly see the love, the mercy, and the justice of God. I encourage you to study the Scripture as a learner, as one seeking after the truth praying for the Holy Spirit to guide you, not as one who must have all the answers before he believes. God will not teach one who comes to the Bible for merely an intellect exploit, but, as it is written, “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself.” (John 7:17)

Ricky Kim says:
September 7, 2010 This comment is in response to the resolution made up above that I find to be deeply disturbing:

“We define creation science in the context of the recent creation week of seven ordinary, literal, historical, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four hour days of divine creation and rest as described in Genesis.â€

I must ask, has it never occurred to the brilliant mind of Elder. Ted or to the other Adventist believers to consider the following notion: that the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the 4th day of the creation week. In which case, if this in fact is true, how can one logically argue for the position that the first 3 days were literal twenty-four hour periods, when in fact it could have been a thousand or perhaps a million years? Do we not use the celestial bodies to determine our concept of time and space? It seems that the verses describing the Creation are not to be taken literally but more figuratively, allow me to explain.

Ricky Kim says:
September 10, 2010 I guess where we ultimately differ gentlemen is that we donâ€™t see eye to eye in matters pertaining to scripture because I donâ€™t necessarily see it to be inspired.

Ricky’s POV is clearly consistent in that he rejects the Bible and therefore sees no problem at all with bending it “as needed” to make it fit evolution – or simply tossing it out the window altogether to embrace evolution.

Now as much as Ricky may be thinking that this opposes the Adventist positoin regarding those who believe in evolutionism — it actually confirms it. We can easily agree with Ricky that once you toss the Bible out the window – belief in evolutionism (no matter how irrational and unscientific it is) is just about all that is left.

Professor Kent says:
September 9, 2010 And a second happens to be based on something like 9192631770cycles for cesium 133
Bob, Iâ€™m sure you must recognize this, and Iâ€™m only trying to be helpful here, but something like 9192631770 cycles for cesium 133 is based on a second, and not the other way around.

As usual Prof Kent misses the point. If the argument is that the fabric of space time ITSELF does not allow for TIME (and evening and morning in a 24 hour period of earth’s rotation) unless you have the sun therefore God could not have informed Moses of such a thing existing at a time before He created our sun, THEN the simple atomic clock example fully debunks the lack of logic in that rationale.

@Lee Folkman, Your post is great, but Ricky does not believe the bible is necessarily inspired, which, in liberal language means “not inspired” or he will himself decide and choose which parts he wants to believe are inspired.

So, using quotes from the bible are of little to no help for him. Right, Ricky?

I guess where we ultimately differ gentlemen is that we donâ€™t see eye to eye in matters pertaining to scripture because I donâ€™t necessarily see it to be inspired.

Indeed. And, your arguments might carry more weight if you got most of your facts right. So far, most of your arguments and claims have been quite easily falsified. That doesn’t cause you the briefest pause when coming to your conclusions? – that most of what you thought was true really isn’t true after all?

Respectfully, these arguments towards a theodicy fall flat for me. If a creator [G]od is the prime mover, and [G]od is omniscient, according to classic Xian theology [G]od was able to foresee the consequences of [G]od’s actions. And yet, …the presumption is that [G]od went ahead and put everything in motion. The freewill argument stops working about right here because at some point in time, [G]od had a choice to make – before anyone or anything was created into existence and awareness. If a theology asserts that the whole of the universe was created by [G]od, at one point there was just [G]od and [G]od with all of the future to consider. In this paradigm, [G]od is completely and totally responsible for everything that happens in this universe.

“We can easily agree with Ricky that once you toss the Bible out the window â€“ belief in evolutionism (no matter how irrational and unscientific it is) is just about all that is left.”

Mr. Bob,

I don’t know how you can dismiss evolution as being irrational and unscientific-I mean religion teaches that a talking snake existed, alongside a burning bush, and men rising from the dead.

To say the Jesus rose from the dead, or preformed the various miracles that is told has happened based on scripture suggest that the natural order of things, of how the earth operates and still continues to operate till this very day has been suspended and has leaned on your favor. Tell me, what is more likely? that the natural order of things has indeed been suspended, or everything that is “miraculous” is not very miraculous at all?

As to your last comment regarding whether our differences in factual convictions has lead me to doubt my own and thus reflect upon yours as right.
I must say, that although the debate between evolution and creation is important and ongoing-it is not as important as theodicy for me personally. I lost faith in a God, or at least in a God protrayed by Christians as being all powerful, loving, and knowing because I can’t see how it measures up to rationality-that has so brillantly been captured by Epicurus,

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I personally don’t know how to respond to your comments, but I don’t think you are in the right place to gain a clear understanding of God, his love for us, how he deals with evil, and how we should treat others because of his love for us. To those you are conversing with, understanding and practicing “truth” seems to transcend everything else (in my opinion). Unfortunately, many contributors to this website have a knack for strongly expressing their views and pejoratively labelling those who disagree with them.

If I knew you personally, I would want a friendship with you in which we could both share our views without either of us feeling looked down upon by the other. You would be more important to me than your understanding of “truth,” and this, in effect, is the way the God I believe in relates to us all. He loves us unconditionally, even if we reject Him.

I do appreciate your interest in these questions–they are truly important and not easy for a contemplative Christian to deal with. I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

Ricky Kim, Have you considered Revelation 22:5 “And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them;” (NASB) God is light as evidenced by the burning bush and the shekinah glory.

God(light) plus a rotating planet wil give you an evening and a morning without the sun. Likewise, God (light) is all the light the created plants needed prior to the creation of the sun.

Ricky quoted: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

If I am twice as big and three times as strong as my wife, would it be love if I used my superior strength and size to control her every move? If I refused to use my strength to control her every move, would this prove me to be weak? If she chose to leave me for another, and I let her go would my superior strength be in question. Would you say I was malevolent for refusing to use my superior strength to confine her if I knew her new suitor to be evil?

Ricky, you miss the majesty of free will. God has the power to require you to worship Him, but this would not be love. God allows you to choose evil(self, not God)and walk away from Him. You appear to be trying to blame God for your choice for evil, when you say that God is malevolent for allowing you to choose. Love (“the greatest of these”) is more important to God than demonstrating his omnipotence, that is why Jesus died at the hands of lilliputian men to provide you a bridge back to a loving God and gain your release from Satan’s prison of sin(evil).

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Quote)

Ricky–Good question.

Here lies the foundation for this ‘Great Controversy’ we find ourselves in. Really you have highlighted one of the central factors of Who God Is–that He gives free will to His beings. History clearly teaches us the results of free will mis used. Love can only be founded on a free will choice, and the fundamental principle that holds the universe together is love. If this principle is not upheld than you have nihilism and anarchy–the principles we see taking over on this earth.

By analyzing earths history we see where rejecting God’s law of love has taken us, and we can agree with Him that those who choose to live outside of this law cannot be allowed to continue. God has allowed enough time for the facts to be presented and assessed by all, when He does act, there will be no question as to the ultimate justice and goodness of His purpose.

Nahum 1:9
What do you conspire against the LORD?
He will make an utter end of it.
Affliction will not rise up a second time.
NKJV

To those you are conversing with, understanding and practicing â€œtruthâ€ seems to transcend everything else (in my opinion). Unfortunately, many contributors to this website have a knack for strongly expressing their views and pejoratively labelling those who disagree with them.

This may be true of a number of contributors (you are no stranger yourself to strongly expressing your views against those who don’t agree with you). However, not all in this forum, certainly not the staff of EducateTruth, wish to entertain or express pejorative statements against anyone who is sincerely searching for the Truth… regardless of his or her current position along the path. This particular sentiment of yours is strongly supported by EducateTruth.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

As others have already noted, Epicurus, though perhaps quite brilliant in many other ways, evidently didn’t understand the concept and risks (to God) of providing us humans with real moral freedom… which includes a real freedom to rebel against God’s will…

Hence the source of evil – human freedom in rebellion against a good God who never desired us to rebel in the first place, but gave us the freedom to do so…

Yet, you argue that God’s foreknowledge should have given him the heads up – that he is responsible for the choices we made because of his own foreknowledge. You write:

In this paradigm, [G]od is completely and totally responsible for everything that happens in this universe.

Consider the limitations of this argument. If God changed everything that would happen, in the beginning, so that it would match His will instead of how He knew things would naturally develop if He did in fact create creatures with access to true moral freedom, that would be a form of removing true freedom. If God didn’t create you, for example, because of his foreknowledge that you wouldn’t always be perfect, and would rebel, on occasion, from what you knew was right (as we all have done), that would have been a form of altering true freedom.

Since only God knows if he is actually playing the game fairly, our true freedom is really only known, for sure, by God. It really only matters to Him, ultimately, if we are really free or not. The best we can know is that God has told us we are in fact free to make moral decisions and that he will not interfere with those decisions with the use of his powers of foreknowledge or by any other power of force to change our actions, outside of our own will, to match his own will.

That’s a big risk for God because it means that he is actually setting himself up for the potential for his creatures, you and I, to rebel against his goodness and his ideal for us and our lives…

I think you are missing the point of my inquiry gentleman.
Which is, why did God create man or anything else for the matter at all?
Knowing that by doing so, some will choose the road to destruction, while others will face unspeakable suffering from the hands of others. If he did not create anything to begin with-than this concept of free-will-would not be necessary. Why did God create?

Mr. Stone,I donâ€™t understand your usage of the terms â€œliberalâ€ and â€œfundamentalistâ€.Believe me, if you followed everything the Bible says-you would be out stoning the homosexuals, killing the witches, etcâ€¦Everyone pick and chooses passages from the Bible.You canâ€™t be 100% objective about it, because the moment you read it you already are interperting it in your own unique way. (Quote)

Ricky, As many before me have explained, IF we lived in a theocracy, with God as leader, this is just what God has said He would require. However, we don’t live in such a world. I do not decide what punishments are appropriate for transgressions against mans’ laws or God’s law. Neither do any churches or church members, except as we participate in any democratic voting procedures.

So, believing the bible and stoning people for various “crimes” are separate issues. We DO stone (kill) some people for some violent crimes in some states, however. Based on what? Man’s interpretation of the crime’s appropriate punishment. In some cases, a small fine, sometimes imprisonment, and some cases someone or group has decided death.

So, Ricky, when God our leader, HE decides what punishment is required according to His law. When Jesus returns (or do you believe in this?) and God’s Law is once again supreme, that’s what will happen again. Plainly spelled out in the bible.

Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” KJV

When did God create evil and why would He do so? Is not evil necessary for you to have free choice, if the choice always involves being for or against God’s will? Are not free choice and evil inseperable concepts, you can’t have one without the other?

Can you have free choice with God retaining His omniscience? Calvin thought not, rejected free choice and arrived at the concept of predestination. I contend and would like you to consider that God gave up His omnisceinece for His created beings moral decisions to foster love as the controlling principle in His universe.

If you read the Bible literally, there are many examples of this being true. Here are just two:

Genesis 3:10-11 “And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And He said, Who told thee that thou was naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” KJV If you read these verses literally did God know before he came to walk with Adam in the garden that Adam had sinned or was he tipped off to it by Adam’s statement of nakedness?

Genesis 6:5-7 “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man who I have created from the face of the earth;” KJV Read it literally and decide did God know before he created the earth that he would have to resort to a flood and destroy mankind? How can you repent and be grieved by something that you have known about for years?

Many have said that freedom is not free. It invariably has to be bought with someone’s blood and treasure. Free choice is not free. God had to give up His omniscience, sacrifice His Son and endure the frustrations and humiliation of His created beings making the wrong choices and suffering the consequences. Become a Berean and study free choice, you will come to know God better and appreciate Him more.

With all do respect, It really frustrates me how you continue to babble on things that makes no point whatsoever to the question I am asking.
Your argument regarding free-will alongside the various illustration you have so elaborately written up in support of your thesis makes no mark if we were to consider my original proposition:

Why did God create anything to begin with? Why not just hang out with the trinity? Knowing that by creating he is leaving the fate of his creatures to chance? Why create? what is the purpose of creating anything? Do you understand my question now? If you don’t please say so.

I think you are missing the point of my inquiry gentleman.
Which is, why did God create man or anything else for the matter at all?

Knowing that by doing so, some will choose the road to destruction, while others will face unspeakable suffering from the hands of others. If he did not create anything to begin with-than this concept of free-will-would not be necessary. Why did God create? Ricky Kim

Well, Ricky, some accept and like the bible’s answer to your question and some don’t. For those who don’t like the answer, God will simply “un-create” them as this is their choice.

Do you like the fact that God created you? Those who are saved, all like this idea. They may not like suffering and other negative things sin has brought into God’s universe, but we are told and promised that this will all come to an end soon.

God is not responsible for sin, even though He has allowed it. Others have explained this.

Ultimately, God created us to know and share the quality of life He Himself knows and enjoys. And in fellowship with Him and others who know and fellowship with Him as we fellowship with each other, we experience a quality of life that transcends the animal world.

For us, this means self government based on a responsible freedom in harmony with God’s loving will.

Do you like this idea? If not, God won’t force you to participate but will honor your choice to be free from this responsible freedom and end your existence.

Satan desired irresponsible freedom. It doesn’t work that way. That is simply chaos with no stability. Responsible freedom is governed by the law of love. Christians are in the process of learning and appropriating God’s way instead of Satan’s way. Not always easy, but rewarding and satisfying in the end.

Sin is delusional. It promises freedom, but genders bondage. We don’t have to know everything, and don’t. So what we don’t know, Jesus stands in our place and presents us to God as “perfect”. Knowing this, we have “peace with God through Jesus Christ”.

If we don’t have Jesus, then we must know everything and be equal to God. This is not possible. God can not create another God. But He can create a moral being with simular qualities. That is, freedom of choice as others have explained.

Do you want to live forever in perfect freedom and happiness? Jesus is the answer. If you are struggling to figure some of this out, “welcome to the club”. But there is a viable biblical answer that has a rational explanation based on spiritual concepts. The Holy Spirit helps us see it, know it, and appreciate it. And ultimately, desire it.

I hope someone has helped you see and understand something of the enigma of your question.

Your questions do not have easy answers, and I’ll refrain from long-winded philosophizing. I believe God chose to create for the same reason I chose to procreate: for companionship upon which to bestow my care and affection.

I will agree with you in your statement that there are no easy answers for this question. Which is why I continue to disbelieve in a loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. I dare say, that this question is apart of many others which leads fellow human beings like myself to question God’s existence and more importantly his character. If he truly cared for the skeptics out there, I would think that he will reveal this hidden mystery that frustrates so many. What is he so scared of? Also, in regards to your comment, does God really need a companion? I thought he didn’t need anything?

However, I digress.
It seems like our only answer to resolving suffering in this world gentlemen is to combat it. In the spirit of the “Good Book” I say that will be to take care of the poor, widow, orphan, and resident alien among us. To fight for the rights of the marginalized, and to give voice to those who have none. And ultimately regain the dignity that has been robbed through violence, rape, and other wicked acts.

May we live honorably up to the various convictions we hold to be true.

Is not the Bible the story of an all powerful, all knowing King, who gave up all to come and rescue “the poor, widow, orphan and the resident alien” from the clutches of the adversary, who has made humans poor, widows, orphans and aliens? You appear to blame God for not solving these problems by using his knowledge and power. But if He gave them up to come and live among us and show us the true nature of the adversary and of Himself, how can He use what He gave up?

I hope you live up to your convictions for you will meet up with a God forsaken God, who appears to be powerless and of little knowledge in dealing with the adversary. Live your convictions and you will come to know the God who wishes to call you brother in your fight against the adversary. Live your convictions and others will see God in you.

You question, “. . . does God really need a companion? I thought [He] didn’t need anything?” And in a previous post, “Why did God Create anything to begin with? Why not just hang out with the [Trinity]?”

The short answer is: LOVE! Love must be shared, else it is limited. At some point in eternity past the Trinity decided that having creatures made like themselves with the capacity to love, creatures with whom they could share their love, was worth the risk that some of those creatures would choose not to share that love and would rebel against it.

No, that does not make Them (Trinity) responsible for their (creatures) rebellion, given that love demands freedom to choose not to love, else it is not love. (Marriage and children will demonstrate this point most effectively!) The risk was so severe that when the event occurred, One of Them (Trinity) had to choose to give up Himself in order to restore the creatures who chose to accept love back into a full, loving relationship with Trinity and each other.

Eventually, those who chose against love will be removed so that those who chose in favor of love can enjoy the results of their choice and the efforts of Him who made it possible into eternity future. Paradise Lost to Paradise Restored.

I’m truly sorry if you don’t see the love Trinity has displayed and choose to join them. They will always miss you!

“I hope someone has helped you see and understand something of the enigma of your question.”

Dear Bill

Even though I am an agnostic I thought your response to Ricky was clear and well said. Nice job.

I think theodicy is a tricky issue, especially the mass murder of innocent children during the Noachic flood. Should little children be drowned because of the conduct of their elders? Hard to understand how that could be remotely just by a kind and caring God. I certainly wouldn’t kill anyone’s children for the acts of the parents and I’m just a fallible mortal.

“Should little children be drowned because of the conduct of their elders? Hard to understand how that could be remotely just by a kind and caring God. I certainly wouldnâ€™t kill anyoneâ€™s children for the acts of the parents and Iâ€™m just a fallible mortal.”

Regards
Ken ken(Quote)

Actually, Ken, our understanding of justice is very limited. Simply because we do not see everything God sees.

Neither do we comprehend the pain sin has caused the heart of God. And it may seem to us the God is arbitrary in at least some of His actions, He is not.

One thing we can know for sure. What is done in the course of history is necessary to bring about a complete and final end of sin.

And as EGW has said, “We do not know how God will deal with children of unbelieving parents since the bible does not tell us.”

Here is the exact quote……” I had some conversation with Elder [J.G.] Matteson in regard to whether children of unbelieving parents would be saved. I related that a sister had with great anxiety asked me this question, stating that some had told her that the little children of unbelieving parents would not be saved. {3SM 313.1}
This we should consider as one of the questions we are not at liberty to express a position or an opinion upon, for the simple reason that God has not told us definitely about this matter in His Word. If He thought it was essential for us to know, He would have told us plainly. {3SM 313.2}

The topic is somewhat off the issue of creation, but if you learn to trust the God of creation, you will know His dealings with the human race are both just and merciful. And if you and I feel bad about sin, how do you think God feels?

Ricky Kim says:
September 10, 2010 â€œWe can easily agree with Ricky that once you toss the Bible out the window â€“ belief in evolutionism (no matter how irrational and unscientific it is) is just about all that is left.â€
Mr. Bob,
I donâ€™t know how you can dismiss evolution as being irrational and unscientific-I mean religion teaches that a talking snake existed, alongside a burning bush, and men rising from the dead.
To say the Jesus rose from the dead, or preformed the various miracles that is told has happened based on scripture suggest that the natural order of things, of how the earth operates and still continues to operate till this very day has been suspended and has leaned on your favor. Tell me, what is more likely? that the natural order of things has indeed been suspended, or everything that is â€œmiraculousâ€ is not very miraculous at all?
But this again, will fall into conflict do to how we see the Bible. Ricky Kim(Quote)

Ricky – there are two options here.

1. The Bible is correct. God created all of nature and the same God that created all of nature has the ability to “talk” to “walk” and to “create events” at any point in time even after creating all life on earth. So both the natural events and the supernatural events are all ultimately from God. No need to “imagine” that the empty vacuum of non-space and non-time simple invents a universe.

2. The Bible is wrong. There is no God and all that we see in nature came about “of its own accord”.

In that view gas and dust will eventually turn into a human mind all on itse own just due to the properties inherent in dust and gas alone.

â€œAs for the recent comment above about the fabric of space-time not having a 24 hour concept until earthâ€™s sun is created â€“ the hint I would give is a four letter word â€“ NASA. We spend quite a bit of time sending satellites up where there is no normal rise and set of the sun as they travel through our solar system. This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€.â€

Ken responded

Ken says:

Dear Bob
With respect, I donâ€™t think you can ignore Einsteinâ€™s work on General Relativity when it comes to time. I think it is a very legitimate question as to whether the notion of 24 hours could exist before the applicable gravitational forces came into being.
Regards
Ken Ken(Quote)

1. No one here has suggested that gravity was not created until day 4 of creation week. In fact we have been insisting that other solar systems did exist – other Galaxies and planets, even other civilizations on those planets before our own creation week.

2. As we send satellites out of our solar system we do not find that their “clocks change” because they are away from the sun. Rather the clock differences are due to their relative speed over time as compared to earth as a frame of reference.

[edit – Sorry Ricky. Your recent questions and comments, while very interesting and provocative, are simply not part of the main purpose of this particular forum. All the best with your continued search. Just consider that your ability to be empathetic with the suffering of humanity was given to you from outside of yourself. If there is a God, surely He knows what you feel since He is the one who created you with the moral sensibilities that you have… – sp]